Thomson v Automotive, Food, Metal, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union of Australia [1996] IRCA 450

DECISION NO: 450/96 CATCHWORDS INDUSTRIAL LAW - REGISTERED ORGANISATION - s 196 of Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) - whether rules of organisation contravene - whether requiring general meetings to approve request by 10% of members for plebiscite oppressive or unreasonable INDUSTRIAL LAW - REGISTERED ORGANISATION - construction of union rules - whether "meeting" means face-to-face meeting Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth): ss 196(c)208 Boland v Munro (1980) 48 FLR 66 Doyle v AWU (1986) 12 FCR 197 Higgins v Nicol & Ors (1971) 18 FLR 343 Hodder v AWU (1985) 9 FLR 498 Lawley v TWU (1987) 22 IR 114 Loh v O'Grady (1992) 42 IR 215 McCherish v Kane (1978) 36 FLR 80 MOA v Lancaster (1981) 54 FLR 129 Quickenden v F.A.U.S.A. & Ors (1990) 33 IR 54 Re A.F.P.E.C.S. (1991) 43 IR 378 Re Ferguson (1995) 58 FCR 106 Wright v McLeod (1983) 74 FLR 146 GLENN ASHLEY THOMSON v AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METAL, ENGINEERING, PRINTING & KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION OF AUSTRALIA VI 95/6317 CORAM: WILCOX CJ, MOORE & MADGWICK JJ PLACE: SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE) DATE: 24 SEPTEMBER 1996

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VI 95/6317 On Appeal from a Single Judge of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia BETWEEN GLENN ASHLEY THOMSON Appellant AND AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METAL, ENGINEERING, PRINTING & KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION OF AUSTRALIA Respondent CORAM: WILCOX CJ, MOORE & MADGWICK JJ PLACE: SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE) DATE: 24 SEPTEMBER 1996 MINUTES OF ORDER The court orders that the appeal be dismissed.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VI 95/6317 On Appeal from a Single Judge of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia BETWEEN GLENN ASHLEY THOMSON Appellant AND AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METAL, ENGINEERING, PRINTING & KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION OF AUSTRALIA Respondent CORAM: WILCOX CJ, MOORE & MADGWICK JJ PLACE: SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE) DATE: 24 SEPTEMBER 1996 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: On 7 May 1996 we heard an appeal from a decision of Marshall J refusing an application under s 208 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act) to declare that rule 47.9AA of the rules of the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union of Australia (the Union) contravened s 196 of the Act. At first instance the applicant, the present appellant, Glenn Ashley Thomson, initially relied on both para (a) and (c) of s 196. But during argument his counsel abandoned reliance on para (a). The learned trial judge set out reasons for thinking that concession to be correct. He relied on a statement of Gray J in Loh v O'Grady (1992) 42 IR 215-219 which emphasised that, in a consideration of such matters, it is the rules as a whole that count. As Gray J noted, "Rules such as those dealing with referenda are certainly part of such an examination... So also are rules dealing with elections ...". We express no view about this aspect of the matter. In the result Marshall J dealt only with para (c). The argument before us was confined to para (c). That paragraph provides: "196. The rules of an organisation: ... (c) shall not impose on members, of [an] organisation, conditions, obligations or restrictions that, having regard to the objects of this Act and the purposes of the registration of organisations under this Act, are oppressive, unreasonable or unjust." At the conclusion of argument we dismissed the appeal and indicated we would publish our reasons in due course. These are our reasons.